Olbermann’s Rant

I figured it couldn’t make me feel any sicker, so I finally watched Olbermann’s rant. I like the way he starts by saying that what follows does not constitute an endorsement of Senator Obama. Of course, he’s objective and has been for months.

I may have mentioned this earlier, but one of the refreshing aspects of this campaign has been the way it has allowed me to see people I’ve admired as regular human beings, with the usual mix of virtues and flaws. It’s a liberating thing to have no heroes. It makes you feel lighter, somehow.

Anyway, I love Keith’s reasoning on the experience issue. FDR had six years in elective office . . . therefore Obama has the requisite experience to be president. Olbermann does kind of leave out FDR’s seven years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the run for Vice President in 1920, not to mention fighting polio and founding Warm Springs.

By the way, the rant about how if you’re qualified to be Vice President you’re qualified to be president . . . well, yes, in a perfect world. But Vice Presidents are chosen for lots of reasons, sometimes for bad reasons. Olbermann knows as well as anyone that it is not truly a logical inconsistency that Hillary should consider Obama for VP, even if she believes him to be not quite ready for the top job. She’d be doing what a lot of presidential candidates have done, gambling that she won’t be dead on Day One. In any case, what does this line of argument have to do with Geraldine Ferraro? Not much, really. Keith is just throwing everything at Clinton but the water bucket.

But wait, then comes the water bucket:

I couldn’t believe this. (No I could believe this.) Olbermann actually has the nerve to cram in the talking point “false or true” that Hillary’s “3 am phone call” campaign ad had racial “undertones.” Then he goes that one better: In a truly graceful touch, he goes on to say that Hillary should repudiate Ferraro as a way of repudiating racial undertones that aren’t there in other aspects of her campaign, because some people happen to see them.

Am I following this right? Is Olbermann actually saying that if Hillary launches any line of argument against Obama, IF someone on the Obama team SEES racial undertones, Hillary should find ways to distance herself from the racial undertones of her line of argument even if they aren’t there? Isn’t this really close to saying either that Hillary should make no case against Obama at all — or that all arguments against Obama constitute either racism or the possible perception of racism, by definition, and must be repudiated?

If this is the case, then hasn’t Olbermann just described the same state of affairs as Geraldine Ferraro, with the difference being only that he thinks this is a good thing?

I’m not defending Ferraro here. I’m just looking at Olbermann’s argument, and it’s not making much sense to me. What am I missing?